Sindhanai Selvan v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Sindhanai Selvan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai Rural, Tiruvannamalai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thachampattu Police Station, Thachampattu, Tiruvannamalai District.

4. Elumalai

5. Devi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents No.1 to 3 from interfering with the civil dispute and the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land comprised in Old S.No.3/2 New S.No.6/1 S.Nos.6/2, 6/7, 6/4, 6/5, 6/6, Old S.No.1/3 New S.No.1/15, 1/16 in Allikondanpattu Village and Land comprised in S.No.20 in Thatchampattu Village.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Abishek For Respondents For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfering with the civil dispute and the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land comprised in Old S.No.3/2 New S.No.6/1 S.Nos.6/2, 6/7, 6/4, 6/5, 6/6, Old S.No.1/3 New S.No.1/15, 1/16 situated at Allikondanpattu Village and Land comprised in S.No.20 in Thatchampattu Village, by the petitioner.

2.

Originally the property belongs to one Sathiyaseelan and he executed a lease deed dated 04.02.2025 in favour of the petitioner for doing agriculture. When the petitioner started cleaning the land, the respondents 4 & 5 obstructed the petitioner from entering the land and abused him in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequently. Hence, the petitioner lodged complaint and on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the third respondent registered a FIR in Crime No.44 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r) & 3(l)(s) of the Schedule

Caste/Schedule Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as against the respondents 4 & 5. On the said complaint, now the third respondent compelled the petitioner to vacate and hand over the subject property to the original land owner.

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3.

It is seen that there was a property dispute between the original owner and the respondents 4 & 5. The petitioner is claiming tenancy over the subject land and therefore the respondents 1 to 3 have no role to play in the civil dispute between the parties, in respect of the subject property. However, if any offence committed by the petitioner or by the respondents 4 & 5, the respondents 1 to 3 can very well take appropriate action as against them, in accordance with law. 4.

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

28.04.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order rts

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

rts To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai Rural, Tiruvannamalai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Thachampattu Police Station, Thachampattu, Tiruvannamalai District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

28.04.2025